Get Ready For Chapter Approved

[chapter master 454]

I dont get the attitude honestly; across codexs all of them appear to be at face value in the same range of power. 

Astra mili----*cough* Imperial Guard look a bit harder to deal with on the face of it but frankly is  a minor issue in all but the highest of tier meta. 

 

IF you are including index then of course things look lop-sided and they say "hey might wanna get allies for the time being" 

 

I am not entirely sure what you are getting at; marines are still the "baseline" as Str4 / T4 and 3+ will always be the most prevalent stat line in the game 

 

I have had issues with my index-army against codex armies. No lie, but when I use my black legion or my White scars they tend to perform just fine in a semi-competetive meta, my thousand sons are fighting an uphill battle for the next few months till our dex drops in early 2018.

 

If you are hyper-top-tier-meta obsessed maybe this game just isnt for you? there will always be top-tier to mid/low tier inconsistencies. Its basically true in every game, even online ones.  there will always be people that obsess over "points efficiency" and "tourney tactics" in every game. 40k is no different. and most companies have issue controlling that at one point or another, so instead GW is actively changing the meta AS things evolve in 8th.. To be entirely honest I am *very* confused about what exactly it is that you "want" from GW in that regard.  In 8th so far they have changed several major issues that were damaging the meta, they havent gotten around to all of it but they literally opened a community survey to do just that.  

 

And with the recent addition of better balanced missions from chapter approved and the points overhaul for several units and the helping of bringing up non-codex factions to decent levels......I just dont get it. 

 

This comes down to what is balanced. The one thing in 40k that is a huge issue is any unit that can do everything, which is an oddity as it may seem to contradict some things.

 

First, if one was to run a biker army of marines you are an inherently strong force. High Toughness, decent saves, high mobility and because of their weapon choices can take all comers on all fronts. In melee you are tougher and have access and allowance along with good reasoning to take power swords or suchlike melee weapons. At range you have your boltguns and various special weapons which because of your mobility have insane effective range. What army can take this army on reasonably? Not a lot as this is an army that can make every squad virtually their own self contained problem solver. Coupled with their high mobility and improved durability you have what would could be considered a tournament army and in fact is, having faced ravenwing before those guys can run you down and over with overwhelming speed, firepower and ability to take a licking.

This is one list we could build and for the sake of it, let's say it's a white scar list.

 

Now, let's go down a specialist road. Lets say we want to go heavy duty with infantry. We will run heavy units like Centurions, terminators and gravis armour based units. These units are incredibly tough, hard hitting but lack mobility. Certainly their march is implacable and they walk across the board and open fire. Sadly however these units are murdered by their inherent weakness: Speed. While it may be unfair to put one list against the other, this list will for the sake of argument put against the biker list. We will consider this list as an Iron Hands list to further the theme of it. These guys are various multi-wound monsters with withering gunfire be it from boltstorm gauntlets, hurricane bolters, lascannons, gravcannons or even the melee of assault terminators. Even if given some transport of land raiders to carry them.

 

What happens? The biker army can sit back and relax because no matter what the heavy list does, it can't win. If it balls up to create a death ball and attempt to march across the board it will just be harried from bikers picking at outlying units while the rest of the bikes secure objectives. If the Heavy army spreads out in a bid to claim objectives the units are just picked apart with no ability to get support as each unit is unable to move quickly.

 

While it may be possible for the heavy list to win certain missions, it will be hard to do. Their firepower and durability while not matched by the bike list, they certainly get close and they have overwhelming speed advantage. I mean, while run lascannons when you can have a meltagun with the effective range of what? 22" or there abouts (don't play bikes and can't remember their 8th edition statline) and yet you only pay 17 points vs. 25 AND you can still move and shoot with full effectiveness along with the benefits of extending the range further at the expense of a -1 penalty.

 

The only mission the heavy would win in is kill points and maybe base objectives (1 each side). Meanwhile, every mission for the bikers I would give them good chances of being able to pull off and even in kill point matchs I would still favour the bikes.

 

For context: I am an avid lover of tanks. I love the heavy duty units. I love putting out that withering gunfire that melts units to dust and ashe. I have often fielded lists with 3 land raiders as my core. However they have NEVER been able to keep up with other units. Even when I go lighter and attempt to bring in infantry that aim to be a strong gun army, they still fall under these lists that can just do everything. The ironic twist of this tale is sad:

 

Marines are the Jack of all Trade army but since all their units share this, they are thus a master of none as their fastest units lack one attribute to bring the lowest into parity.

Armies like Eldar however are the Masters of Fast Hard Hits. This thus allows them have an army that can deal with all comers and thus gain the best armour: the one never needed. Don't need armour saves if your opponent can't make you take them because you already killed their threats.

 

To be honest, I am a pessimist of the game in these moments but sadly having been on the receiving end of many lists, with my victories only coming from those who really know not what they are doing it can often feel like many games aren't even close. Not sure what to call myself really.

Am I a WAAC player? Don't feel like it, don't want to bend rules or just win.

Certainly not casual. Don't just want to throw units around randomly.

I want to go all out, no screwing around and have a game where both players fight with all their ability. No "fun" games when a point limit is set, I get fun when the game was hard fought and could be called a game and not just a one sided slaughter for one side. I want to play Chess, not solitaire with my opponents army.

[Sonoftherubric21]

Its somewhat ironic you bring up bikes in this scenario, and more specifically White Scars.  

I actually own a White Scars army and find that bikes are very "mediocre" in 8th edition.  They are not very durable in my local meta, theres tons that will wound them on 3's and do 2 wounds. and "poof" 20 some odd points.  My Scars do fine overall as I dont just spam bikes, i use rhinos filled with sterns/company vets, splash primaris, among other things.

 

I usually feature 15 some odd bikes in a given list including characters, but I really don't think scars are as good as you seem to think. at least in MY meta as an example; plenty of auto cannons, tons of multi-damage guns, D2 weaponry and plasma wreck a bike squad mighty fast. 

 

Though this is just one example; a super specific build vs a super specific build may have a skewed game. 

[Ishagu]

Eldar, Nids and Guard are the best single codex books.

 

Marines lack model mass and board control to truly compete in anything outside of kill points. Blood Angels are better in this regard than the regular codex due to their ability to assault from reserves.

[kombatwombat]

But using allies to patch your various weakness, your main force own innate strength is dulled. Is a risk v reward. Do you value the Jack of All Trade Master of None (and as such agree with the second half of phrase, ‘Better than the Master of One) or do you believe in Bruce Lee tenet of “I fear the man who was practiced one kick a thousand times, then the man practice a thousand kicks one time.”

 

I am not saying allies should be considered mandatory or otherwise. Buts if you don’t take allies your army own innate strengths will be highlights and strengthened while your own weakness will become even more salient. It’s a trade off.

The general theory of what you’re saying is fine, that having a more focused army should highlight both your strengths and weaknesses. The problem is that at the moment the tradeoff is not a zero sum. Every time you take some advantage you should trade off an equal advantage, and at the moment this is simply not the case. Taking options from other armies gains you far more than you lose in your main force.

 

My preferred solution to this issue is pretty simple. All Codex books have a section about how you only gain access to Codex Stratagems, Warlord Traits, Relics and subfaction traits if the whole Detachment has certain keywords in common. The solution is simply to change the restriction from ‘Detachment must have <Keywords>’ to ‘Army must have <Keywords>’. Suddenly cherry picking the most powerful combination units from a bevy of Soup factions has a disadvantage. A Soup army has the advantage of being able to plug any gap and pick from a broad range of super-powerful units, but the pure army has the advantage of a range of powerful special rules. It’s even thematic - the more familiar your teammates are, the more complex tactics you’ll be able to pull off.

 

It’d need a couple of caveats - the first being that Auxiliary Detachments are treated completely separately in that they neither get access to the Pure special rules nor prevent an army from getting access to Pure rules. This would let you put a single Assassin or Inquisitor or something in your army without messing up your army’s purity. The other would be Soup-only armies (Inquisition and Ynnari), but those are definitely the exception and not the rule, so they could get their own special snowflake way of handling the situation.

[Schlitzaf]

I don’t agree. That will make the detachment system pointless. Like I have a mixed Vostroyan-Black Templar Force. Right now I am using three detachments. Black Templar Battlelion, Vostroyan Battlelion and a Soup Vangaurd (Rattling, Cenos and Deathriders). If the moment I include a Vostroyan Unit, even if it’s in a second detachment, results in me losing access to my BT Chapter Tactics. I’m gonna just make a brigade. Or without even changing my current list, I could add an Outrider Detachment. (Well I can’t sense I am limited to three detachments at 2000).

 

Tying army traits to the army level is bad solution. Furthermore saying “25% can only be spent on allies” is another poor solution. 40K is not Sigmar. The same solutions won’t work. Because including allies in 40K have a far larger minimum investment. Bar the auxillary and Patrol Detachments, their is 3-5 Unit minimum.

 

Celestine or Gulliman will still be taken, by every army in a competitive Imperial List. While you made it so every army beside Marines or Sisters, can’t take the lovers. Marines will still just slot Celestine and Gaurd will still take Gulliman for his rerolls and counter charge.

 

Forcing purity on an army level not detachment level, will just enable more souping. Completely destroy having the detachment system in the first place.

[Withershadow]

7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

[Toxichobbit]

 

To be honest, I am a pessimist of the game in these moments but sadly having been on the receiving end of many lists, with my victories only coming from those who really know not what they are doing it can often feel like many games aren't even close. Not sure what to call myself really.

Certainly not casual. Don't just want to throw units around randomly.

 

The reason you don't know what you are is because you are prescribing to the internet definition of casual. Casual doesn't just mean throwing random units around. Casual definitely doesn't mean not caring if you win or loose.

 

Casual will, of course, be slightly different to different people, but over 25 years of playing this game to most people it means having fun, not being a jerk to your opponent and not taking the desire to win too far (aka WAAC). There is absolutely no reason that you can't be casual and still play a competitive game.

 

The guys in my gaming group always play to win. None of us ever throw games (unless we're teaching new players), we never just put random stuff on the table for a laugh and we always consider a game plan when building lists. We play by the rules, no fudging mistakes or house ruling things we feel are unfair or unbalanced. We almost always have discussions on tactics after games, both regarding list selection and our decisions on the tabletop, with the aim of improving our skills. Yet while we're trying to win, we're also having fun experimenting with new builds that we think might have promise and not stretching or bending the rules to gain advantages. We don't tend to spam or run the top tier most powerful lists (e.g. in my case it'd be Guilliman & chums) because for us, it makes the game boring, predictable and less fun. Sometimes the only reason we need to try a unit out is because we like it's background and/or model, even if it isn't the best unit we could take. Yet we're still trying to get all we can out of that unit and use it to the best of our ability in order to win the game.

 

So what exactly are we? We're certainly not WAAC, if we were I'd run Guilliman every game and my opponents would be spamming whatever is best for their factions. Guilliman hasn't hit the table yet in 8th and my opponents rarely take more than one of a unit, occasionally two for stuff like Transports or Troops. Yet we're not just herp a derping random stuff on the table with no thought or desire to win, which is, according to internet "wisdom" how casuals play.

 

Well, we consider ourselves casuals. We play the game casually - at home, with mates, mainly to have fun and enjoy the challenge. Not to dominate and be the best. We play competitive games, because otherwise there is no challenge, yet we're not competitive players. We aren't taking the most efficient lists nor are we looking for the most efficient paths to victory. And we certainly aren't engaged in the tournament scene.

 

What I'm saying is that casual is an attitude, not a play style. It's about priorities. A competitive player might prioritise winning above theme, aesthetics, story or experimentation. A casual player might prioritise one of the latter over winning. Yet competitive players can still enjoy the theme, aesthetics, story and generally have fun without compromising their primary goal of winning. Likewise, a casual player can still play with a desire to win while emphasising other aspects of the hobby. Casual and competitive are not mutually exclusive. They're two ends of a spectrum, with lots of overlap and lots of granularity inbetween.

[Ishagu]

7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

7th is no more a simulation than 8th. It just had some rules bloat that slowed the game and had no impact on strategy.

 

Also, Toxichobbit, your gaming group sounds very limiting. Playing every game with lists built for efficiency is pretty boring outside of a tournament. Narrative games with friends are something that should be explored.

If you play frequently, why be concerned with winning and losing so much? I play so often I couldn't care less if a game is lost or won. I'll play another in no time.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Ishagu

[DuskRaider]

 

7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

7th is no more a simulation than 8th. It just had some rules bloat that slowed the game and had no impact on strategy.

 

In your opinion.

[Toxichobbit]

 

7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

7th is no more a simulation than 8th. It just had some rules bloat that slowed the game and had no impact on strategy.

 

Also, Toxichobbit, your gaming group sounds very limiting. Playing every game with lists built for efficiency is pretty boring outside of a tournament. Narrative games with friends are something that should be explored.

If you play frequently, why be concerned with winning and losing so much? I play so often I couldn't care less if a game is lost or won. I'll play another in no time.

 

 

You're jumping to conclusions. The purpose of my post was to demonstrate that competitive and casual aren't mutually exclusive, not to give a detailed report on my local gaming group. I emphasised the combined competitive and casual aspects of our standard games, but the omission of a more detailed explanation of other activities (narrative, campaigns, chatting about background etc) doesn't mean we don't do it. Most of us enjoy lots of different aspects of the hobby and that includes different play styles. So far in 8th we've played a chunk of games with each of the main variants of the rules, Open (with the card deck of randomness), Narrative and Matched. We've not tried the more preperation intensive variants like Planetstrike and Stronghold Assault yet, but we'll get round to it.

 

The concern is less about winning and more about trying to win. Playing an opponent who doesn't care about winning, who just shoves stuff in a list and moves it willy nilly around the board isn't fun for me or any of my group. Simply put, we enjoy the challenge intrinsic of a more competitive slanted game and our time is too precious to spend it doing something we don't enjoy.

[Lysere]

Hard to read every post in this thread but as far as not wanting to buy Chapter Approved, if you plan on playing in any tournament format you will need to be using the most up to date point values. If this means at least borrowing a copy or using an app to do that fair enough, but to refuse to use the updated points in a such a setting denies you any right to participate. Everyone in such a setting is held to the same rules.

 

Outside of tournaments if I played someone who refused to buy it and wasn't using the most up to date point values I'd just ask if we could use Power level to compare since I'll already have mine calculated and if we aren't using the same points then why bother with them at all.

 

Chapter approved was never advertised as a place to adjust major core rules, it was advertised as a place to update some point values, tweak matched play, and add a bunch of extras for people to make use of. If they do core rule updates they will do that through some other means at another point in time, and since those rules will be something that everyone will need to follow they'll probably do them as a free errata.

 

Discussions about what is or isn't best for the game in terms of core rules is not really a part of this discussion and should be taken elsewhere. Not everyone likes the changes but no matter what it is people will always disagree about changes to a game they spent money on.

[kombatwombat]

I don’t agree. That will make the detachment system pointless. Like I have a mixed Vostroyan-Black Templar Force. Right now I am using three detachments. Black Templar Battlelion, Vostroyan Battlelion and a Soup Vangaurd (Rattling, Cenos and Deathriders). If the moment I include a Vostroyan Unit, even if it’s in a second detachment, results in me losing access to my BT Chapter Tactics. I’m gonna just make a brigade. Or without even changing my current list, I could add an Outrider Detachment. (Well I can’t sense I am limited to three detachments at 2000).

How does it make the Detachment system pointless? The Detachments (too loosely in my opinion) limit what mix of units you can take, and reward you for putting more of your points into troops and, to a notably lesser extent, a general mix of unit types. In the past, the Force Org Chart did only the first part, and that worked just fine for a long time. If you’re pushed into making your three Detachments into a single Brigade... so? You still get to field the army you want, you get a slightly different (ultimately better) CP tally and you have to call it something different. I can’t see what you’re tangibly losing here.

 

What you are losing is Chapter Tactics and Codex Stratagems, Warlord Traits and Relics. I’m sorry to say it, but, well, good. Ask yourself, exactly what reason do you currently have to not take the Vostroyans? Your army would be flat out weakened by not taking them. You might get the satisfaction of theme, but rules-wise you have no reason not to just take a Soup army and throw in a few units to cover your weaknesses. If you start with a Templars army, you have no drawback to adding Soup as it currently stands. The Army Purity solution gives you some reward for not just playing Soup.

 

I mean I get it, your dudes and your theme would be tangibly weakened, and as a fellow Templars player I know we’re near the bottom of the pile competitively already, so you will be naturally opposed to this idea. But I really do think, looking at the bigger picture, this solution gives people a reason to take a Pure army rather than a Soup one, and gives Pure armies a much-needed leg up..

 

Celestine or Gulliman will still be taken, by every army in a competitive Imperial List. While you made it so every army beside Marines or Sisters, can’t take the lovers. Marines will still just slot Celestine and Gaurd will still take Gulliman for his rerolls and counter charge.

I should clarify, the Auxiliary Detachments that give -1 CP would not affect Army Purity, but the Superheavy Auxiliary Detachment still would. So you can pay 1CP to have something impure in your army. It solves Guilliman, and Celestine being the one problem unit does not mean the whole solution fails.

 

Forcing purity on an army level not detachment level, will just enable more souping. Completely destroy having the detachment system in the first place.

How does it encourage more Souping? It gives a powerful incentive not to Soup (Traits/Stratagems/Relics/Warlords). Anybody currently going Pure isn’t going to say ‘well, I can avoid gaining powerful bonuses by Souping, so now that this change has come into effect I’m going to Soup up my list’. People who currently go full bonanza with the Soup (as in 5 different factions or something) are going to have their competitive strength take a hit, which means they may be tempted to stop Souping. The people in the middle of those two extremes - those who may or may not take a couple of units from a second faction - will also see an incentive to go Pure.

 

The only people who may be encouraged so Soup by this change are those that think ‘I simply cannot bear to play without using these couple of units from one faction along with the bulk of my army from another faction, so since I’m having to Soup anyway I might as well Soup harder and add more cross-faction units’. These people’s view is just as valid as anyone else’s, but we’re taking a small subset of a subset of people at this point. Sure you might get a couple of these people Souping more, but they’re going to be far outnumbered by the people who jump onto the Pure train for the bonuses. Ultimately the Soup would decrease and, more importantly, the power disparity between Soup and Pure lists would narrow.

 

I get that we disagree above, but on this last point I’m flabbergasted as to how you think my solution would lead to more Souping rather than less?

[Bryan Blaire]

 

 

7th was a simulation. 8th is a tabletop board game. Both have their charm.

 

7th is no more a simulation than 8th. It just had some rules bloat that slowed the game and had no impact on strategy.

In your opinion.

The game has had a mix of simulation elements and tabletop game/abstraction elements in each edition. Some editions have been weighted more toward one or the other, but none have been perfectly free of the other. The slimming down of stimulative elements in the rules of 8th doesn’t mean that they have been eliminated or that it is a better game, just that it is a different game. People have preferred previous editions specifically because of stimulative elements it had, but the same game failed to have stimulative elements for all gaming components - which people may have also preferred, but none of the editions have truly been simulations of a battle and all were influenced by the development of the game Edition that came before. 8th is no exception to this.

[Gentlemanloser]

Moral matters?

 

Face 30 Gaunts laying 180 S4 shots who are immune to Moral (Synapse), then wonder why Commisars got nerfed...

 

Edit: As for 'Soup' do you all consider single Codexes that mix detachment bonuses (like Craftworlds, Fleets or Chapters) to maximise effectiveness (for example having CC elements of your single Codex army being Kraken and all shooting elements Kronos) to be 'Soup'?

 

Or does it have to involve other different Armies?

 

 

 

The thing is, the game is more balanced than it has been in years

 

Nope. Not in the slightest.

 

Play a pure GK list versus Kronos Nids and see how you fair.  It's basically better to just concede and pack up than play.

 

8th is just as unbalanced as 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th (never played 3rd).  And to make matters worse, this is supposedly the most playtested and 'balanced' edition yet.

 

I call hogwash on both of those claims.

 

Edit;

 

As for the new CA Eternal War missions, I have only played one so far.  Supply Drop (I think, number 2).

 

All it did was add two more levels of RNG to who won the match.

 

RNG for first turn.  And RNG that placed the two Objectives in my oppoents DZ and denied both objectives to me.

 

Yay...

 

I lost the game due to three random d6 rolls.

 

I'm not a fan of extra, non controllable (and use rerolls on any of these rolls) RNG directly effecting game outcomes.

 

Might as well make linebreaker, Slay the Warlord and First blood a RNG roll as well.  1, get no VP.  2-5 get 1 VP, 6 get 3VP.  WooT?

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gentlemanloser

[Mileposter]

Edit: As for 'Soup' do you all consider single Codexes that mix detachment bonuses (like Craftworlds, Fleets or Chapters) to maximise effectiveness (for example having CC elements of your single Codex army being Kraken and all shooting elements Kronos) to be 'Soup'?

 

Or does it have to involve other different Armies?

I certainly count that as Soup. Marine Soup or Craftworld Soup is just as Soupy as Imperial Soup or Chaos Soup. But while I'm put off by Imperial Soup... I'm not so sure I'm put off by Marine or Craftworlds Soup. Chaos has been Soupy forever, and that's never stuck in anyone's craw - so should Marine Soup feel any different? Dunno. Gonna have to see how I feel about that.

 

 

The thing is, the game is more balanced than it has been in years

 

Nope. Not in the slightest.

 

Play a pure GK list versus Kronos Nids and see how you fair.  It's basically better to just concede and pack up than play.

 

8th is just as unbalanced as 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th (never played 3rd).  And to make matters worse, this is supposedly the most playtested and 'balanced' edition yet.

 

I call hogwash on both of those claims.

 

Saying "The Edition cannot be more balanced because one instance occurs" is not a thing. There are still bad matchups. There are still broken things. But just because we are frustrated by the things that are broken doesn't mean we cannot be grateful that there are fewer broken things than there have been in the past.

[Gentlemanloser]

Fewer?  I don't know how you would even measure that.

 

Sure, that was just instance by me, but it's a vast swing in balance.  But there are many other bad matchups and broken things in 8th.

 

Just as there were in every other edition.

 

Except in the other Editions GW didn't seem to care to even recognise balance.  But in 8th it seems to be a core goal.  One they have missed, and consistently fail to reach.

 

Balancing Razroback points costs due to UM and Bobby G usage, but 'balance' those costs to every other Imperial faction that don't get the same effectiveness?  Not balanced in the slightest.  And I could go on. ;)

[Toxichobbit]

Moral matters?

 

Face 30 Gaunts laying 180 S4 shots who are immune to Moral (Synapse), then wonder why Commisars got nerfed...

 

Edit: As for 'Soup' do you all consider single Codexes that mix detachment bonuses (like Craftworlds, Fleets or Chapters) to maximise effectiveness (for example having CC elements of your single Codex army being Kraken and all shooting elements Kronos) to be 'Soup'?

 

Or does it have to involve other different Armies?

 

I play against a lot of Tyranids so I know exactly what you're talking about. Morale has mattered for my Marines from time to time (and bare in mind I'm playing Ultramarines, Ld9 with a re-roll is solid resistance to failing morale) and it's mattered to quite a few non-Tyranid armies I've faced. I don't think morale is a problem this edition, it does come up relatively regularly but on the whole hasn't been crippling. IMO the problem (as your post is illustrating) is Tyranid special rules meaning Tyranids flat out ignore parts of the main rules. Synapse means Tyranids ignore morale, Shadow in the Warp means Tyranids mostly ignore enemy psykers and Instinctive Behaviour, the rule meant to be the flip side of Synapse is so laughably easy to avoid that if GW removed it tomorrow I doubt many players would notice it was gone. It's largely irrelevant to the game.

 

In that respect Commissars and/or Conscripts needed to be nerfed, though they've gone too far with it and made them both almost useless.

 

I personally consider any army mixing to be soup, whether that's mixing from different Codexes or mixing different Chapter Tactics, Regimental Doctrines etc. However, taht comes with no pre-concieved judgement. Just because I think it's soup doesn't mean I think it's bad*, the individual elements making up the soup will determine that for me. A Guard army backed up by a couple of basic Marine Squads in Drop Pods is a far cry from Guilliman's Hellblaster/Culexus circus. One is a soup list built respecting and emulating the lore, the other is a list built to do one thing, win games. Depending on the game I'm looking for, I may favour one of those as an opposing list over the other.

 

* I'll leave "bad" in here for the sake of sentence clarity, but it's not really about whether it's bad or good and more about whether it's something I'd enjoy playing against.

[Gentlemanloser]

Deathwatch largely ignore Moral and the new Dangels mostly do as well.

 

I'm sure other armies have similar, I'm just not well versed enough.

 

And with smaller Marine Squads, Moral just really hasn't been an issue.  I either lose the entire Squad, or lose so few that I don't even need to roll.

 

I totally support the Commisar/Conscript nerf, but the similarities between Guard and Nids are too telling.

 

Big tanks screened by chaff, or Big Monsters screened by chaff.  Except one version gets to keep ignoring Moral.  And GW call this 'balanced'?  It's not, and pokes a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks that GW have any idea of what balance is or how to implement it in 8th edition.

[Mileposter]

I totally support the Commisar/Conscript nerf, but the similarities between Guard and Nids are too telling.

 

Big tanks screened by chaff, or Big Monsters screened by chaff.  Except one version gets to keep ignoring Moral.  And GW call this 'balanced'?  It's not, and pokes a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks that GW have any idea of what balance is or how to implement it in 8th edition.

And completely ignore any other differences in those two vastly polarized armies, yes? This makes it sound like you aren't wanting balance, you're wanting mirroring - which, while it is a form of balancing, is not the only method.

 

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

[Gentlemanloser]

Not at all.

 

Call them netlists if you want, but the common lists I see for both armies are *similar*, as I said.  Not identical, not mirrored.

 

But Tanks screen by conscript chaff (prior to Comissar nerf), and Exocrines/Tryanofexes/other big gribblies, screened by Gaunts.

 

Sure, Nids have loads of other tools.  Biovores, Zoanthropes, Genestealers, Flyrants, and can be build a multitude of ways.  As can Guard.

 

But Commisars were nerfed because they were used to provide near Moral immune Conscript chaff units to screen the heavy hitters.

 

And that's *exactly* what Nids do with Gaunts.

 

Except for Nids they remain both immune to Moral, and can be built to provide more than stellar offense (180 S4 shots).

 

Best of both worlds?  But surely no where near 'balanced'.

[Toxichobbit]

Deathwatch largely ignore Moral and the new Dangels mostly do as well.

 

I'm sure other armies have similar, I'm just not well versed enough.

 

And with smaller Marine Squads, Moral just really hasn't been an issue.  I either lose the entire Squad, or lose so few that I don't even need to roll.

 

I totally support the Commisar/Conscript nerf, but the similarities between Guard and Nids are too telling.

 

Big tanks screened by chaff, or Big Monsters screened by chaff.  Except one version gets to keep ignoring Moral.  And GW call this 'balanced'?  It's not, and pokes a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks that GW have any idea of what balance is or how to implement it in 8th edition.

 

Orks spring to mind as well.

 

I agree this edition doesn't feel anymore balanced than previous editions. It certainly isn't the most balanced edition. Well, maybe it is, but to be honest, so what. When a boat has enough holes to sink it doesn't matter if the boat over the other side of the dock has more holes ... and 8th edition has a lot of holes.

 

That said, balance is a unicorn, we'll never find it.The game is simply too complex. It's also largely dependent upon where you're sitting at the time. For Tyranid players this edition is more balanced than previous editions, not because they're very good (although I don't dispute) but because they aren't utter dog dodo that's reliant on one unit (winged Hive Tyrants) to be even remotely competitive like they were in the last two editions. Another example was Guard, pre Conscript/Commissar nerf they were pretty happy with the edition but with the nerfs they're, lets say, less enthusiastic about things. I'm generalising of course and glossing over lots of individual opinions in favour of an overall community feeling, but hopefully it gets the point across.

 

I'm sad that CA failed to fix a lot of the balance problems and exagerated some current ones, but I've got hope that GW are at least moving in the right direction, even if they're moving too slowly and zig zagging rather than getting straight to the problem.

 

 

I totally support the Commisar/Conscript nerf, but the similarities between Guard and Nids are too telling.

 

Big tanks screened by chaff, or Big Monsters screened by chaff.  Except one version gets to keep ignoring Moral.  And GW call this 'balanced'?  It's not, and pokes a finger in the eye of anyone who thinks that GW have any idea of what balance is or how to implement it in 8th edition.

And completely ignore any other differences in those two vastly polarized armies, yes? This makes it sound like you aren't wanting balance, you're wanting mirroring - which, while it is a form of balancing, is not the only method.

 

All squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

 

 

Are you saying large hordes of morale immue troops was too powerful for Guard yet not too powerful for Nids because they're different? As someone who has played with Guard as well as with and against Nids, they're not too different. Nids are better (more versatile) but both armies can be played the same way for great effect regardless of their other differences. I fully believe comparing those two armies and saying the game isn't balanced because Guard suffer heavily from morale where as Tyranids ignore it has merit.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Toxichobbit

[Beams]

Kronos nids is ridiculous. Even if not played well, they aren't fun to play against. Just a immobile line of Giants and gaunts double-firing at you, as you barely manage to close the distance, with a -1 to hit on them from the brain-bugs.

 

And even if you manage to kill half the gaunts, they replenish and never have to worry about morale. "Just kill the synapse creatures first!" You say? Well, a smart nid player hides them out of line of sight, and Daisy chains a few gaunts to them, and screens for deepstrikers. And since not every army has an artillery option (or even long range firepower (looking at you sisters and grey knights)) it makes it one of the worst matchups in 8th.

 

All that said, I'd take that any day over any of the bullcrap that was 7th edition. Unkillable deathstars, taudar wiping you off before you even have a chance to move, all that BS.

[Lysere]

Kronos nids is ridiculous. Even if not played well, they aren't fun to play against. Just a immobile line of Giants and gaunts double-firing at you, as you barely manage to close the distance, with a -1 to hit on them from the brain-bugs.

 

And even if you manage to kill half the gaunts, they replenish and never have to worry about morale. "Just kill the synapse creatures first!" You say? Well, a smart nid player hides them out of line of sight, and Daisy chains a few gaunts to them, and screens for deepstrikers. And since not every army has an artillery option (or even long range firepower (looking at you sisters and grey knights)) it makes it one of the worst matchups in 8th.

 

All that said, I'd take that any day over any of the bullcrap that was 7th edition. Unkillable deathstars, taudar wiping you off before you even have a chance to move, all that BS.

 

My metric for how bad 7th was compared to now is the Bark Bark Star. The fact that existed at all is a testament to the issues with 7th. So long as we never come back to that level of nonsense 8th will always be better in my book.

 

As for fighting nids I've only fought them a couple times this edition and my issue was more of coming to grips with my list I've been working on and not positioning things a bit better. I also didn't realize some of the stratagems I had access to at the time. It was Kronos as well but I nuked the two monsters that were the biggest threat right at the start and denied him the amount of damage those could have done.

[Toxichobbit]

Kronos nids is ridiculous. Even if not played well, they aren't fun to play against. Just a immobile line of Giants and gaunts double-firing at you, as you barely manage to close the distance, with a -1 to hit on them from the brain-bugs.

 

And even if you manage to kill half the gaunts, they replenish and never have to worry about morale. "Just kill the synapse creatures first!" You say? Well, a smart nid player hides them out of line of sight, and Daisy chains a few gaunts to them, and screens for deepstrikers. And since not every army has an artillery option (or even long range firepower (looking at you sisters and grey knights)) it makes it one of the worst matchups in 8th.

 

All that said, I'd take that any day over any of the bullcrap that was 7th edition. Unkillable deathstars, taudar wiping you off before you even have a chance to move, all that BS.

 

I've not fought Kronos, only Leviathan. Same issue though, increased durability to attrition and fantastic firepower. I also think killing Synapse first is bad advice. Smaller Synapse are easy to hide and the bigger Synapse is taking weapons away from other targets. Even if you do take out Synapse it isn't going to affect the big stuff and that's the main threat. This is going off topic though, so I'll just point to this post I did a week or so ago that goes into much more detail.

[Gentlemanloser]

Some insights from my matches.

 

GK are overpowered in the Psychic Phase...

 

Shadows negates half our chapter tactics. 1CP means we will almost always auto fail our cast. Then there's the warlord trait that gives you 1d3 mortal wounds if you fail.

 

Nids can spam full power smites as well as well anyone. Our baby smites tickle in comparison.

 

Nothing can really weather 90/180 S4 shots rerolling 1s to hit and wound.

 

Stealers will get to you in one turn and above 10 will eat anything they charge. Kraken let's them fall back and charge you again to go first again. Under 10, they are no longer a threat.

 

Biovores have been hit or miss. But i've never faced 20 biovores in one list...

 

Swarmlord is a beast. Especially backed by tyrant guard to move wounds onto.

 

Exocrines. Ugh. Shoot twice. Reroll 1s due to kronos. +1 hit. T8... ugh. I hate them more than rupture cannon tyranofexes.

 

Carnifexes buffed by one eye are more than just distractions. They hurt now.

 

Most gaunt/gargoyle units are free kills. They evaporate outside synapse range.